14 Bad Ad Policies That Will Get You Blacklisted in Chrome

Google’s web browser, Chrome, now blocks ads by default. Why would Google block ads? Well, taking into account that more people are becoming increasingly aware of ad-blocking options, it was only a matter of time until Google had to do something about it.

69% of people surveyed said that they were motivated to install ad blockers by annoying or intrusive ads.

It started with Better Ads, a set of standards published by an industry group called the Coalition for Better Ads, of which Google is a member. The working group established a set of principles, aimed at helping publishers design better ad experiences for users and, subsequently, better ad policies. The policies are based on a research paper on human behavior and establish ad experiences that fall beneath acceptable consumer acceptability.

Here is the list of ad experiences that will get your website blacklisted in Chrome for desktops:

Pop-up Ads

One of the most annoying types of ads, pop-ups block content either entirely or partially and require user action to be closed. Usually, the close button is disguised, and users end up landing on the add page.

Auto-Play Video Ads with Sound

This type of ad will get you on bad terms with your boss, wake up your baby or simply ruin your Mozart experience that runs in the background. It’s frequently used to display random unsolicited financial advice, the latest MMORPG, or as a method to deliver content to users. And this is wrong. It should be noted that quick-to-play ads are still acceptable.

Prestitial Ads with Countdown

In my opinion, these types of ads are a blatant middle finger to your visitors. It degrades the value of content, by ruining the interaction between users and content. I mean, if you place an ad between me and your article, why should I read your article?

Large Sticky Ads

Sticky menus are great. Sticky ads are not. Displayed at the bottom of the page, this type of ads block content and requires a lot of effort from users to dismiss them.

The list continues with lousy ad experiences on mobile:

Pop-up Ads

The king of the bad ad behavior is also present in the mobile blacklist. Pop-ups that require interaction are bad.

Auto-Play Video Ads with Sound

In addition to being a catalyst for bad user experiences, this type of ad eats your precious mobile data, discharges your battery and pauses your music.

Postitial Ads with Countdown

Preventing interactions with countdowns is terrible, both on mobile and on the desktop. It’s common sense. You don’t need Google to tell you that.

Prestitial Ads

You’ll never find a design principle that would encourage this type of UI block. You are basically adding a layer of distrust between you and the user. We are on your website for content.

Flashing Animated Ads

Flashing animated ads are the reason ad-blockers exist. The earliest monetization strategy is finally about to get shelved. The web is no longer the wild wild west. The ad rush is long gone.

Large Sticky Ads

Unlike desktop experiences, where sticky ads are horrendous, on mobile screens, it’s more natural to close this ad with a thumb movement. Well, as long as there is a close button. Don’t use them.

Ad Density Higher Than 30% on Mobile Screens

If ads are covering more than 30 percent of the screen, you will find yourself on Chrome’s blacklist. Overcrowding content with text, image or video ads is bad.

Full-Screen Scrollover Ads

If you are using this type of ad, then you’ll be happy to know that I ad-block your website. And if a single user is not enough to bring sense to your ad strategy, then Chrome will teach you a lesson.

How Will Chrome’s Ad-Blocker Work?

Google will evaluate sites for compliance with the above standards. Any sites that don’t comply will be informed via API. If offending ads aren’t taken down after 30 days, Chrome will block all ads. Yep, compliant ads will also get blocked. So, leaving Chrome to take care of your user’s experience won’t do the trick. Furthermore, Chrome will also notify users that it’s blocking ads.

Ads Are Not Evil

Ads are not evil. Obtrusive ads are. I’ve always tried to keep my browsers away from ad-blocking. I know that a lot of publishers are making a living from ads, and I know that servers don’t pay for themselves. Instead, I chose to block sites with irresponsible ad policies. And now Google will make this task easier.

Google’s latest move will hurt some publishers. However, complying with the outlined principles will prove to be beneficial for the web. One thing bothers me. Who watches the watchmen? Who knows what else will Chrome block in the future.

“One thing bothers me. Who watches the watchmen? Who knows what else will Chrome block in the future.”

It makes sense to introduce ad-blocking features, but a huge problem for me is that Google is taking the action to block content by default, without the user’s request/permission. What happens if they flag something as an offensive ad when it’s not an ad? Will they start replacing ads they deem as “intrusive” with their own ads that they make money from? Don’t take control away from the user. Sure, make it easy for people to block ads that are deemed intrusive (though that might be subjective in some cases) but don’t do it automatically. Without the user knowing it.

It remains to be seen. There are quite a lot of unhealthy things going on around the internet. The loss of net neutrality, ad companies blocking ads, surveillance webcams with built-in face recognition… Are we heading to an Orwellian future or a “Do no evil one”?

Oddly enough, even though Google owns YouTube now, YouTube is still guilty of having auto-play ads in the top right corner, countdown ads before you can watch a video, ads that if the video itself were a webpage, the ad would be the sticky footer, and with the option to ad ads for subscribing, visiting the uploader’s paywall content on their website, etc. as pop-up on top of the video. The only way to avoid some (but not all) of the ads is by signing up for the paid subscription to YouTube Red, which in turn allows you to watch even more videos that should have been free otherwise. I’m not entirely against the monitization of some of the content, but the methods used do mean that Google is breaking their own ad rules.

Will Google block the video sharing service they now own, will they fix their ad practices, or will they put themselves on a pedestal and claim the rules are only for other companies?

I don’t like the big brother attitude, but then again, I hate those ads which don’t allow me to move beyond them, the cheap flashing things and those which show up behind my browser. The best thing is to create a way of blocking them, so each individual can choose what their experience will be.

Personally, if I can’t get to where I want to be without sitting through a 30 min spiel, I’m gone. If I can’t click out of that ad, I’m gone, and depending on my mood, if you put too many ads sliding or popping up in front of what I’m reading, you lost me. When I say I’m gone or you lost me, it means I opt out of your emails and don’t go back to your site again….ever.

@Appster “There is hardly a difference between Firefox and Chrome anymore. So why bother switching? Well there”s obviously a pretty big difference if Chrome doesn”t make your top 5. “It would go down like this for me: 1) Waterfox (powerful add-ons, recent code base, no signing requirement, otherwise see all Firefox advantages) 2) Firefox (about:config, bookmarks management) 3) Iridium (privacy, open source) 4) Vivaldi (customization, yet closed source, rather bad privacy) 5) Pale Moon (same as Waterfox, but too outdated for my liking, no WebExtension compatibility) So, that’s it for me. So i guess there”s a pretty big difference after all, that made you switch from Chrome, since your top 2 browsers are Firefox and a Firefox clone that wouldn”t exist if it weren”t,.. for Firefox.

@Appster “There is hardly a difference between Firefox and Chrome anymore. So why bother switching? Well there”s obviously a pretty big difference if Chrome doesn”t make your top 5. “It would go down like this for me: 1) Waterfox (powerful add-ons, recent code base, no signing requirement, otherwise see all Firefox advantages) 2) Firefox (about:config, bookmarks management) 3) Iridium (privacy, open source) 4) Vivaldi (customization, yet closed source, rather bad privacy) 5) Pale Moon (same as Waterfox, but too outdated for my liking, no WebExtension compatibility) So, that’s it for me. So i guess there”s a pretty big difference after all, that made you switch from Chrome, since your top 2 browsers are Firefox and a Firefox clone that wouldn”t exist if it weren”t,.. for Firefox.